Omotayo Obatolu & Another
Allegation / charges
Client Money, Solicitors' Accounts Rules
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Two partners of Bearing Sachs LLP faced charges arising from six conveyancing transactions. The Tribunal expressly noted there was no allegation of dishonesty. Both were found to have breached SAR 1998 (Rules 32, 22 and 15 Note ix) by failing to keep proper accounting records, making improper transfers causing debit balances, and allowing the client account to be used as a banking facility. The First Respondent (a registered foreign lawyer and the firm's MLRO) was additionally found to have breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and Rules 1.04 and 3.19(d) SCC by failing to verify client identity, accepting/paying funds for third parties, and failing to report matters to lenders. The First Respondent was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers and ordered to pay costs of £27,000 in this case (plus £30,000 in linked case 10420/2010). The Second Respondent was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 costs, with a recommendation she not practise as principal/partner for three years.
Duties found breached:
- Act in the client's best interests
- Act only on proper, lawful instructions
- No improper use of client money
- Prompt accounting and return of money
- AML and crime-prevention compliance
Aggravating factors:
- First Respondent was the firm's Money Laundering Reporting Officer yet admitted he had never heard of the banking facility rule
- Repeated and consistent disregard for professional rules across six transactions, not isolated incidents
- Clients and lenders exposed to a high level of risk
- Damage caused to reputation of the profession
- Failure to report variations in purchase price and third-party funding to lenders
Mitigating factors:
- Second Respondent was an inexperienced solicitor (admitted 2007)
- Respondents expressed remorse and put measures in place to prevent recurrence
- Positive character references provided
- No previous disciplinary findings
- First Respondent's difficult financial circumstances and ill health